(Joseph Valachi (center) - Before him, the Mafia was a rumor)

Hard to imagine that before the Valachi Hearings grabbed the headlines and the attention of most Americans in 1962, the Mafia was something of a rumor as far as hard evidence of organized crime was concerned.

But once the investigations started and Joseph Valachi's revelations came to light, it was as if the floodgates of life in the Underworld came pouring out for all to see. The hearings, chaired by Senator John McClellan (D-Arkansas) and guided by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy went on for weeks and were televised by all the networks. People were fascinated by it and couldn't get enough of the daily goings on.

McClellan: “The existence of such a criminal organization known as Cosa Nostra is frightening. This organization attempts to be a form of government unto itself and outside of the law. This tightly knit association of professional criminals demands and gets complete dedication and unquestioned obedience of its members to orders instructions and commands from the ruling authority or boss . . or bosses thereof. Family, religion and country are all secondary and require to be subservient to the interests of this vicious criminal syndicate.”

It was the stuff of books, TV shows and movies - and its never let up.

An investigation into abuse of terrorism detainees won't be halted following a letter sent to President Barack Obama by seven former CIA directors. "I don't want to start getting into the business of squelching, you know, investigations that are being conducted," Obama told CNN's John King Sunday.

"I appreciate the former CIA directors wanting to look after an institution that they helped to build," Obama told CBS' Bob Schieffer in a separate interview.

Politico:

The White House’s comments on the sensitive issue have been closely watched by supporters and opponents of further investigation into interrogations some have described as torture.

In August,
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y) urged Obama and his aides not to send signals about what Holder should do in terms of investigating the interrogations.

“I have nothing to say to the president on this, except let Mr. Holder alone. As far as I know, they are," Nadler said at a convention of liberal bloggers and activists. “It would be….improper for the president to decide that there ought to be or ought not to be a special counsel, prosecutions or whatever.”

On Sunday's ABC Roundtable, Liz Cheney and Sam Donaldson got into it on the torture investigations.

The only reason she's on is to defend her father once again. This is old and tired. Why does Dick only appear on FOX News to defend his position? We know the answer to that one. Chris Wallace makes with the Love Boat eyes and crawls on his tummy to try and get Dick all excited. They are like two cats in heat. Sam Donaldson wouldn't take Liz's ridiculous arguments. I mean, she actually says that there already were investigations...cough...cough...by the Bush administration and they passed with flying colors. She then continues to lie about the 2004 report and says that nobody was raped...Sure, Liz...

Liz: You do, you say it has already been looked at..

Sam: By who?

Liz: By career prosecutors...

Sam: In the Bush administration justice department.

But Sam, they were less political than Eric Holder, who is a political appointee...

When Sam brought up drilling people in the head and rape, Liz Cheney was outraged. Not at the act, but at the accusation...

Liz: That is totally, that is inexcusable..

Sam: It's in the report...

Liz: Nobody raped anybody...

George: The law said the threats were illegal, It's against the law.

Liz: Wait a second, that's not clear.

{}

Sam: Everyone except one person that I know has commented ....says torture is waterboarding is wrong.

Liz: Waterboarding isn't torture. We can go that path...the lack of seriousness here is important...

When a conservative is losing an argument, one of their weapons is to say that you're not serious. It's a one stop shop argument fixer. Kristol uses the word "serious" a lot to make himself sound intelligent, but nobody buys it except FOX.

Oh and Liz is still trying to sell her best product of all: Waterboarding isn't torture. How many times has she denied it already?

The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer does a great job here and explains what needs to happen in regard to torture prosecutions:

Jaffer: I disagree with former Vice-President Dick Cheney about the investigation. I think the problem with the investigation is, it's not the existence of the investigation but the scope of the investigation. The problem with it is that it's focused right now at least on interrogators who exceeded their authority. And I don't have any problem with prosecuting and investigating interrogators who exceeded their authority.

But any fair investigation has to be broad enough to encompass not just those interrogators but also the senior officials who authorized torture and the lawyers who facilitated torture. And among the senior officials, who I think are most responsible for putting this torture program into place is former Vice-President Cheney. And so I don't think it's a big surprise, certainly not a big surprise to me that former Vice-President Cheney is opposed to any investigations.

So what do we get in response in this segment. Author Joseph Finder repeating the right wing talking point I aleady addressed in this post, and Jamie Rubin saying we should white wash the whole thing and "decriminalize the whole process". Yeah, that will get these guys to come clean about what happened. All the facts will come out if we give them immunity from criminal prosecutions. Riiiggghhhttt.

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:

Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.

Schultz: Yep.

Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.

I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.

Oopsie, I guess we really can't count this as a mark for "out of the mouth of babes", but Liz Cheney, perhaps inadvertently, admitted that part of the reason we've seen Dick Cheney more in the last two months than we did in the eight years of the Bush administration is that he is very nervous that there will be investigations and prosecutions in his future:

(M)any in the media have asked why Cheney — someone who had avoided the media at all costs during his eight years as vice president — would be airing his opinions in such a forceful and public way. Indeed, Cheney himself has answered this question, claiming he is speaking out because he believes that torture and other Bush administration anti-terror policies — many of which Obama is abandoning — were “exactly the right thing to do” and that “there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth.”

In turn, media figures have answered the question in much the same way. “I think he genuinely believes we are threatened now more because of what Obama is doing,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan has said. CNN’s David Gergen said, “I think Dick Cheney almost has a Churchillian view of this, and that is somebody has got to stand up and be the voice in the wilderness.” But while the narrative of Cheney’s motives focuses mainly on the righteous, it has all but ignored the selfish — that Cheney is trying to muddle the public debate with the goal of reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized.

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:

L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

Sad that this "Get Daddy Out Of Jail Free" ploy seems to have all the news outlets lapping it up with nary a word on what the motives might be for a former Vice President to break with protocol and criticize a sitting President (and by doing so, implicitly admitting that Cheney--not Bush--was in charge). Can you imagine how the right wing noise machine would have gone into overdrive if Clinton had started criticizing Bush for not taking the al Qaeda threat seriously at the beginning of his presidency? By all reports, that's what happened. Richard Clarke was demoted, his reports ignored, and then 9/11 happened on their watch. And now terrorism has increased worldwide four-fold. However, even with this miserable track record (kept from the public by these media outlets eager for a Cheney appearance), Cheney thinks his opinion has any value to the discussion?

Heather has put up the larger Anderson Cooper interview at VideoCafe.

Steve Benen wonders if there isn't a more pecuniary motive to Cheney's sudden appearances (twelve in nine and a half days over four networks). Of course, Liz Cheney may also be trying to establish herself as a credible candidate in 2012 too:

The hottest Republican property out there isn't former Vice President Dick Cheney but his daughter Liz, who has taken to the airwaves to defend her dad and the whole Bush administration on national security and Guantánamo Bay issues. Liz Cheney, who followed the former veep's hard-hitting speech criticizing President Obama's policies with a CNN appearance, is becoming so popular in conservative circles that some want her to run for office. "She's awesome. Everyone wants her to run," said a close friend.

(Attorney General Edward H. Levi - you wonder what he'd have to say today)

". . .for example some of the alleged instances of misuse of the FBI over previous periods have involved directions from the White House, often from low ranking officials, given orally and couched in terms of law enforcement of national security. They involve such matters as surveillance at a political convention, investigations of a newsman unsympathetic to the administration cause, or the collection of information on political opponents. The proposed guidelines require that the request be made or confirmed in writing, specify those who may make requests, require the official initiating the investigation be identified, the purpose of the investigation stated among certain routine areas, and where a field investigation is initiated, an attestation that the subject has given consent".

Attorney General Edward H. Levi (1975-1977) addressing the American Bar Association convention in Montreal in 1975. Post-Watergate, post-Nixon. Listening to this address, I wondered what Levi would have to say about Roberto Gonzalez and the shambles the judicial system had become - falling very far from the "high moral ground" we had been so tenuously placed. I was struck by Levi's mention of the "ambiguous nature" of our Constitution as part of the genius of it. But all it of seemed to be based on an assumption it would never be manipulated to fulfill an agenda of fear. The unscrupulous placed in charge to find loopholes in order to justify immoral behavior and the degree in which those behaviors are carried out.

But everyone should understand: the difference between 58, 59, 60 senators is just fairly illusionary, because we still have to work on a bipartisan basis with whatever we get done.

Sigh. Remind me again, wasn't it Harry Reid and the Senate leadership that told us little people to be patient, because they could do all sorts of stuff once they got the majority--investigations, special prosecutors, accountability?

Now he wants us to believe it's all illusionary...

Is it okay to start questioning whether we really have someone who understands what it means to be the Majority Leader?

Brit Hume and Bill Kristol were in usual form on Fox News Sunday crying about the release of the torture memos by the Obama administration. Without blinking an eye Bill Kristol dismisses the methods used in the interrogations.

Wallace: As you read the memos and you learn what we did and how top Justice Department officials justified it, are you struck by how brutal we were or how careful we were?

Kristol: How careful. I mean has any other country at war gotten memos from the Justice Department? Extremely carefully of recent I would say. Especially the Steve Bradbury 2005 memos before going ahead and trying to deal with the rather small number of terrorists who had been involved in murdering thousands of Americans and were very much intending to do more of that..I think..you read those memos, you think that's what everyone's so upset about.

Kristol goes on to rant about the memos being released and decry the potential investigations that can come from it. I'd like to know how anyone could read the things that were in those memos and have that kind of response?

Brit Hume thinks that this is just old news now since the Obama administration has decided to stop torturing prisoners and can't understand what possible benefit can come from the specifics being released to the terrorists. Brit I hate to tell you this but I think the gist of what was in those memos has been out in the public domain for some time now for those terrorists to read.

All of these talking heads today had a couple of themes with their arguments. One that if torturing prisoners "worked" and we got some vital information from them, then it's just fine to violate the law and it justifies this brutality. The other is the we need to look forward argument and that there's no need to dwell on what happened because the Obama administration says using these methods has stopped. Would they ever apply that same argument to defend some drug dealer on the street that killed someone or to any street crime that occurs in the United States for that matter? Somehow I doubt it.

I wonder just how "careful" Kristol would think anyone was being if he was waterboarded an average of over six times a day for a month? And if it didn't work the first five or ten times even, what are you going to get from anyone from waterboarding them that many times other than some sadistic pleasure from knowing you're punishing the person being waterboarded? I wonder how "careful" he would think they were if it was his child being tortured in front of him because someone thought he was a terrorist? I wonder how "careful" he would think they were if it was his head getting knocked in?

We have laws on the books that don't allow policemen to beat confessions out of people in the United States for a reason. Why these clowns can't manage to bring the same reasoning to this debate is beyond me.

Rahm Emanuel not only told George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week that no field officers should be prosecuted over breaking the law when it comes to torturing prisoners, but he took it a step beyond and proclaimed that even the lowlife John Yoos and Jay Bybees shouldn't face any consequences for their actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?


EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement -- in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.


We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don't use anymore. He banned it.

Look, it's up to us and Congress to push along these hearings and impeachments.

As Jane says:

Is that truly what the administration thinks? That people who want to see those who illegally led the country down the road of torture held to account are simply "looking back" in "anger" and "retribution"? Fifty percent of the country favor such investigations, including 69% of Democrats and a majority of independents. Is Rahm saying that President Obama believes they're nothing more than an angry, vindictive mob, and that nobody could possibly have a rational basis for believing that our laws should be enforced?

Manfred Nowak, the United Nations top torture investigator, says that treaties entered into by the United States require criminal investigations:

The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.

For Obama to say "it is the time to look forward" is not a shock to me, but we have to look backward and take action so these insane practices and anything like them never, ever happen again under any president. I understand that the spooks don't want to be prosecuted for following orders and the pressure the president is being put under by these agencies. I'm just fine with seeing Yoo and Addington and Bybee and all the rest of the Bush Administration honchos in shackles doing a frogmarch, justice for their miscreancy in disgracing this country and using the OLC to justify the illegal practice of torture. I think the world needs to see them, too.

Glenn Greenwald broke this yesterday morning, but it's still news you'll want to hear. Pelosi not only came out for criminal investigations into the Bush administration, she insists Democrats did not know about criminal activities:

In an interview with Rachel Maddow ...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly advocated the need for criminal prosecutions, not merely fact-finding. She even directly criticized the proposal by Sen. Pat Leahy for a "Truth Commission," on the ground that such a Commission would improperly immunize lawbreakers and thus foreclose prosecutions:

MADDOW: This is something that liberals have really been pushing. And you have stated your support for John Conyers convening an investigation into potential lawbreaking in the Bush administration. PELOSI: Absolutely. MADDOW: You've been outspoken about contempt of Congress charges related to the politicization of the Justice Department and that investigation. You have been less specific about how Congress should proceed on warrantless wiretapping and torture. Why is that? . . . PELOSI: Senator Leahy has a proposal, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is a good idea. What I have some concern about though is it has immunity. And I think that some of the issues involved here, like the services part, politicizing of the Justice Department, and the rest, they have criminal ramifications, and I don't think we should be giving them immunity.

Pelosi then acknowledged that the FISA bill passed by Congress in 2008 was flawed in many important respects, but said that the "part of the bill that was positive" was the requirement that the Justice Department's Inspector General investigate the NSA eavesdropping program and issue a report (due this Summer) as to the scope and legality of Bush's eavesdropping. About that comment, Maddow asked Pelosi whether she would favor criminal prosecutions if, as many people expect, the IG Report concludes that the warrantless eavesdropping was illegal:

MADDOW: Then in terms of your report, if the inspector general report that comes out this summer suggests that there has been criminal activity at the official level on issues like torture, or wireless wiretapping, or rendition, or any of these other issues... PELOSI: No one is above the law. I think I have said that. MADDOW: ... you support a call for a criminal investigation, potential investigation. PELOSI: Absolutely.

That's pretty definitive. Maddow then repeatedly, and rather relentlessly, asked Pelosi about how much she was told about the Bush's use of torture and about the warrantless eavesdropping program and whether her having known about those programs was an obstacle to investigations and prosecutions. Pelosi's answers were largely evasive, but she was very emphatic -- I believe for the first time -- in claiming that while she was told by the CIA about potential "enhanced interrogation techniques" in "the abstract," she was never told that these techniques were actually being used. She also claimed that she put up "very strong resistance" to the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program (I've never seen any evidence of such resistance at all; the only letter from Pelosi that was disclosed was one from October, 2001, which merely raised a concern over whether the NSA had presidential authorization for the program, not whether the program itself was illegal). But what matters here is that Pelosi insists that nothing she nor any other Democrat knew or did poses an obstacle in any way to full-scale criminal investigations.

You Tube

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has told Rolling Stone that she is open to the idea of prosecuting Bush officials. Jonathan Turley is pessimistic as am I.

As Turley notes, Pelosi blocked impeachment hearings and can't be trusted to be an honest broker for any accountability of the Bush administration after having done that. I'll believe that Pelosi will actually hold the Bush administration to account for anything they've done when I see it. Until then, it's all hot air.

It's tragic that Bush officials managed to make the leadership in the Democratic party complicit with them after 9-11 when they had them scared to death about losing elections if they didn't go along with them on the torture of prisoners, and they've likely been black mailing them more or less for their silence on this and the other criminal activities as well that the Dems are aware of ever since.

Brad Friedman weighed in on this and I agree with his slant. Pelosi Tells Rolling Stone She 'Thinks' She Can Foresee Prosecution of Senior Bush Admin Officials

In today's Tim Dickinson interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Rolling Stone, it sure seems like she's leaning towards accountability for the criminals in the Bush Administration. Many of her words sound like the correct ones, even if she's a bit too enamored of Leahy's "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" proposal, which, among other "shameful" things, would likely results in a whole bunch of immunity, to a whole bunch of folks who deserve no such thing.

But she says she supports what Conyers is doing in the Judiciary Committee, in continuing to pursue Rove, Bolten and Miers. She says she can foresee a scenario in which senior members of the Administration are actually prosecuted. She says "The American people do not want wrongdoing to go unaddressed." She even said similar words to Fox "News" two days before the Inauguration.

So why does it always feel like she's still sitting on a fence? And, if she really believes these words she says, as House Speaker, can't she do more to make them happen?

She's sitting on that fence because she's likely been told that if you take the Bush administration down, you're going down with them. And torture is not the only issue they're at risk for. The reason for invading Iraq and the spying on American citizens are the other big two that the Democrats went along with, and don't want to be held accountable for either. Our "Gang of Eight" is the biggest obstruction we've got to ever holding the Bush crowd accountable for what they've done and until all of these people are voted out of office or retire I don't see that changing.

You Tube

Countdown's Still Bushed! Feb. 13, 2009 with Ridiculous-Amounts-Of-Money-Gate, US Attorneys-Gate and Investi-Gate.

Gee, imagine this:

Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.

Federal agents in recent days contacted Steele's sister, a spokesman for Steele said yesterday.

The claim about the payment, one of several allegations by Alan B. Fabian, is outlined in a confidential court document. Fabian offered the information last March as he was seeking leniency for himself during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges. It is unclear how extensively his claims have been pursued. Prosecutors gave him no credit for cooperation when he was sentenced in October.

Steele spokesman Curt Anderson said he did not know what information the federal agents were seeking, but he dismissed Fabian's allegations as patently false. "It's from, what, a convicted felon? And it has no substantiation in fact," he said.

Since I used to do oppo research, this part caught my eye:

In one of his allegations, Fabian points to a February 2007 payment by Steele's Senate campaign of more than $37,000 to Brown Sugar Unlimited, the company run by Steele's sister, Monica Turner. Campaign finance records list the expense as having been for "catering/web services." Turner filed papers to dissolve the company 11 months before the payment was received.

Hmm. This should be fun!